If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Originally Posted by Charlie

I don't think anyone here would be offended as their is no need to. My main problem or issue with the highlighted part is that... it just seems like circular reasoning. What it comes down-to for the truly religious people of Islam, or of Judaism or of Christianity something akin to 'my god is better than your god'. Your text is false, my mine is correct / better.

So you find yourself chasing a circle and getting no where.

Well our conclusion is that there is no further message to come down so religious people of Islam today or after the propet are not privy to any new information from God.
The God of Judiasm and Christianity and Islam has essentially the same character to be honest. The contention that we have between Islam Judiasm and Islam is the finality of the message not about which God is better, Jews obviously as far as i know is still waiting for messiah Chrsitains on the other hand says Jesus is the messiah Islam affirms that and says the final message is Quran. The God is essentially the same.

The contention is on the finality of the message, now of course according to me as a muslim i would submit that Quran is the final message i dont expect the christians and Jews to share that sentiment but that doesnt prevent me to talk abt it when i can with the issue ie to preach.

If some one agrees fine if not fine, we should always know how to agree to disagree in these matters. As long as any muslim christian or jews make it impending on any one to belive anything i dont see how any ones belief or circular reasoning for the matter is causing any one any problem. And any one who is talking about ones belief and conveying it to others shouldnt really use reasoning which are circular like My book is true because it says it is. Rather it should be my book is true because it said it is and that can be verified using a third common faculty which we both share.
In that way we have a means for verification and escape the circular reasoning. Now verification can be empirical or based upon certain falsification tests but what ever it may be it should resonate to and include a third common faculty that humans share namely things like say reason or sth else which can be relied to a level of extent in our search for truth.

and as for no one feeling offended unc charlie i ve been to a lot of public religious forum this is one subject that makes even the most meekest religious/atheist go volatile if things are thrown in and out carelessly. So i thought i should add the line since my position here is not to make any one angry by stating my beliefs rather its simply to make our perspective clear, one can sympathize it or take it to be final or reject it, but if we get to understand each other better its for the best of us for we can respect each other better by knowing each other better if we are not to jingoistic in the first place.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

In that context of the victor writing history (and not only that), as well as the character of god, some of you might be interested in a video I recently stumbled upon.
Please be warned though, the guy who made it describes his personal journey of believe in this and some more videos, so it might be controversial to you. Also I don't agree with his positions and on top of it, it's quite long, especially together with the other videos of his.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Originally Posted by shaheer

Well our conclusion is that there is no further message to come down so religious people of Islam today or after the propet are not privy to any new information from God.

Isn't this type of mentality or idea a little one sided?
For the same reasons, the Jews or Christians or any-other religious sect can reject each-other, calming we believe our documents or text are the final ones from God. Believing their religion or religious text is the right one or final one?

Suppose someone arises in the near future, gets some following started, started to reveal things about God and claimed to be the final revelation or that all other revaluations from the past were not accurate. Of-course this would cause religious furor and whatnot but my point is that anyone can come forward to make such claims.

Then you would have religious faithfuls from all religious trying to rebut the said person, if anything he says or reveals is in disagreement with their own.

Quote:

The God of Judiasm and Christianity and Islam has essentially the same character to be honest. The contention that we have between Islam Judiasm and Islam is the finality of the message not about which God is better, Jews obviously as far as i know is still waiting for messiah Chrsitains on the other hand says Jesus is the messiah Islam affirms that and says the final message is Quran. The God is essentially the same.

Whats common is shared background for many stories and of-course monotheism. I'm no religious expert but from what I recall, yes, the Jewish people are still waiting for their messiah to arrive. The Christians are awaiting a second coming.

Quote:

The contention is on the finality of the message, now of course according to me as a muslim i would submit that Quran is the final message i dont expect the christians and Jews to share that sentiment but that doesnt prevent me to talk abt it when i can with the issue ie to preach.

Naturally, being a devout Muslim you believe in your religion and its message. Otherwise there would be no reason for you to follow it. My point is the other devout religious people also believe theirs is the correct one. Also I'm aware the religious people like to also cite their religious texts in order to prove their case whilst the non believer critic also uses them or portions of them to to prove his point or rebut the others and vice-versa...

Quote:

If some one agrees fine if not fine, we should always know how to agree to disagree in these matters. As long as any muslim christian or jews make it impending on any one to belive anything i dont see how any ones belief or circular reasoning for the matter is causing any one any problem. And any one who is talking about ones belief and conveying it to others shouldnt really use reasoning which are circular like My book is true because it says it is rather it should be my book is true because it said it is and that can be verified using a third common faculty which we both share. In that way we have a means for verification and escape the circular reasoning. Now verification can be empirical or based upon certain falsification tests but what ever it may be it should resonate to and include a third common faculty that humans share namely things like say reason or sth else which can be relied to a level of extent in our search for truth.

In your case Shahher, you're open to discussion and will not hold it against someone for disagreeing and so-forth but this not the case with all people and especially fundamentalist.

Quote:

and as for no one feeling offended unc charlie i ve been to a lot of public religious forum this is one subject that makes even the most meekest religious/atheist go volatile if things are thrown in and out carelessly. So i thought i should add the line since my position here is not to make any one angry by stating my beliefs rather its simply to make our perspective clear, one can sympathize it or take it to be final or reject it, but if we get to understand each other better its for the best of us for we can respect each other better by knowing each other better if we are not to jingoistic in the first place.

Well, I'm not sure how many religious people there are here but starting a message like that is not a bad idea at all. Just to cover the bases in-case someone does.

In the wall of text Jesus was mentioned, I lost the pace... but Isn't Jesus linked to a prophet in slam. Whilst, In Judaism and Christianity the term messiah is meant for a savior?

Its been a long time since I've read-up or kept up with Islam and Judaism so my memory might not be accurate. Does Islam also have a messiah that they're waiting for?

In that context of the victor writing history (and not only that), as well as the character of god, some of you might be interested in a video I recently stumbled upon.
Please be warned though, the guy who made it describes his personal journey of believe in this and some more videos, so it might be controversial to you. Also I don't agree with his positions and on top of it, it's quite long, especially together with the other videos of his.

Keeping with an open mind - that video presentation is interesting. Although like you I found some off it a bit off, although I have not seen his other videos.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Originally Posted by Charlie

Isn't this type of mentality or idea a little one sided?
For the same reasons, the Jews or Christians or any-other religious sect can reject each-other, calming we believe our documents or text are the final ones from God. Believing their religion or religious text is the right one or final one?

Suppose someone arises in the near future, gets some following started, started to reveal things about God and claimed to be the final revelation or that all other revaluations from the past were not accurate. Of-course this would cause religious furor and whatnot but my point is that anyone can come forward to make such claims.

Then you would have religious faithfuls from all religious trying to rebut the said person, if anything he says or reveals is in disagreement with their own.

I dont know whether or not religious ppl will gang around to refute any faith as their divine duty or sth preaching doesnt really mean to refute necessarily.
As for the other part about one sided well its because we belive that Islam is the only true way. All way of life are one sided at some basis to be honest. Like say in case of present orthodox christianity the belief in the death of christ is mandatory you cant be assured of salvation otherwise or athesm the whole concept of the message and messenger and God is ludicrous similarly we have certain basic construct on which the religion stands ofcourse there are certain issues that are fluid.

Quote:

My point is the other devout religious people also believe theirs is the correct one. Also I'm aware the religious people like to also cite their religious texts in order to prove their case whilst the non believer critic also uses them or portions of them to to prove his point or rebut the others and vice-versa...

Well like i said if my contention is to quote the Quran where it says that its the word of God to prove its a word of God then its pretty pointless. Citing can go back and forth as long as the discussion is healthy and stays as discussion both party who are citing are benifitted in terms of knowing each other better and appreciating each other better but when things become a diatribe then its a different issue.

Quote:

In your case Shahher, you're open to discussion and will not hold it against someone for disagreeing and so-forth but this not the case with all people and especially fundamentalist.

I think the word fundamentalist is wrongly coined to wrong sort of people unc charlie. I consider myself a fundamentalist but being a fundamentalist in the sense that i follow or try to follow the fundamentals of my religion.That doesnt really mean that i cant really tolerate other people believing other things.
My point is i consider that christianity or hinduism or atheism is not true path BUT that doesnt mean i cant tolerate it being in my vicinity.
I may not be into Christmas or puja or pass over but that doesnt mean that i cant tolerate people who belong to that faith and celebrate them. Tolerance and acknowledging others right doesn't really mean that i have to believe what he is doing is the right way. Simply i am following my way he is following his. I find my position to be supported by the Quran and prophetic teachings so in that sense i am a fundamentalist for following that.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Alright, almost created a thread about it, but figured it would still fit best here, the pope's resignation and his successor.

First off, I almost can't believe there is no talk at all about such a historical incident, breaking with a tradition that has been followed through with only little exceptions. I guess the media coverage is just so good.. So do you think it's okay to do that? Does he serve the church better by resigning or would public suffering like John Paul II. did be more adequate? I'd like to think that, especially regarding his health and constitution, it's the right thing to do for him personally, even though that also means there is actually a person being pope, doesn't it? Funnily, he's minimally older now than his predecessor was - does that maybe set a line for future popes and we will see more of that?

Now for whoever follows him won't be in an easy situation either way, Benedict hanging around probably won't make it any easier, even in isolation. But all the formalities aside, like starting the procedure early with an extended prewarning, and who should or who could it be and which direction should that person follow, the question most interesting is probably where the new guy originates from. Next to the big Italian fraction, there are also lots of candidates from even overseas this time around. Not only would this be a big step, but also go further from the way taken so far, that had almost exclusively seen italian popes. Now there's not only a candidate from Canada, but also some from Africa and I can't help but wonder if they have serious chances advocating polygamy for example, like Turkson does it seems (and that's the nicer position of him being reported at the moment).

Lastly I'd like to know what you guys think about the media coverage. I got a bit annoyed when I saw CNN reporting on the upcoming conclave, comparing it to modern democracies, stating it was all a bit shady business and so on.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Being a muslim i dont really know much about Pope. I ve read the Bible and the theological books about Tanach and talmud and New testament but i am not that acquainted with church tradition or so to speak.
So the topic you started Akainu is perfect for me to know abt this so hope ppl comment regarding this.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

I recently learned that Buddha never claimed to be God or an Apostle of God. He achieved nirvana through human efforts. I found it to be fascinating since it has nothing to do with religion. This is mere spirituality which is good.

Also I have a question. Since it is logical that every religion has good sides and bad sides, one weighing more or less than the other, why do people always focus on the bad side ?

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Because the bad usually includes murder, rape, and oppression. Not saying religions don't have their good side, but with a bad side like that, you begin to see how they can easily outweigh the good.

Hmmm, I don't see that actually. Imo it's more due to the bad sides being emphasized by the outsiders in the evergreen of "my religion is better, you do [insert bad stuff]" and naturally because the bad things are for some reason perceived more intensly than the good things, despite being in balance at worst! Most often the good is way more numerous, yet hardly noticed.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Where I live I'm confronted with the bad everyday. The Christian Right is very dominant in my home town and the city I go to school in. A lot (and I mean A LOT) of people here literally hate gay people and Muslims. Now most are good people but their religion (or religious leaders) promotes their bigotry.

Like I said, not saying it's necessarily true everywhere but down here in the Bible Belt, the bad overshadows the good 9 times out of 10.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Originally Posted by dark lord

I recently learned that Buddha never claimed to be God or an Apostle of God. He achieved nirvana through human efforts. I found it to be fascinating since it has nothing to do with religion. This is mere spirituality which is good.

Also I have a question. Since it is logical that every religion has good sides and bad sides, one weighing more or less than the other, why do people always focus on the bad side ?

A lot of people actually focus on the good side, rather. I think it's mainly atheists or people who dislike a certain religion that focuses on the negatives of religions or that religion. It really depends on the person. I think it's similar to how England sees the bad side of America but the good side of itself and etc.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Originally Posted by Drmke

Where I live I'm confronted with the bad everyday. The Christian Right is very dominant in my home town and the city I go to school in. A lot (and I mean A LOT) of people here literally hate gay people and Muslims. Now most are good people but their religion (or religious leaders) promotes their bigotry.

Like I said, not saying it's necessarily true everywhere but down here in the Bible Belt, the bad overshadows the good 9 times out of 10.

I dont really want to live where you live then with a beard it will be difficult to stay there

Any way Buddhas teaching is sth that we can never be sure of. The method of preservation of the religious text in eastern religion ie Hinduism and buddhism and other such things are really not top notch. Frankly no one cares abt the preservation methodology or atleast i didnt come across any one who does yet and i used to study my O level courses in a Hindu temple! That is the teach was hindu and had his teaching room was just adjacent to the temple my classes were in temple grounds . I didnt come across people who were textual critic ever in hinduism i suspect the same for Buddha.(ofrouse i can be wrong just because i didnt meet any doesnt really mean that there are none but just saying what i know)

I am sure you are familiar with Shia Dark lord they started defying Ali (RA) and this is a habit that most of the people have with respect to the one they revere. We read it even the bible apocrypha People being defied in the apocryphal book of enoch. So if we dont have a solid grounds to know what he (Buddha) taught i dont really think you can conclude whether or not he claimed to be God or not. We dont have his teaching in pristine form and there are too many legends to deal with.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Originally Posted by Drmke

Where I live I'm confronted with the bad everyday. The Christian Right is very dominant in my home town and the city I go to school in. A lot (and I mean A LOT) of people here literally hate gay people and Muslims. Now most are good people but their religion (or religious leaders) promotes their bigotry.

Like I said, not saying it's necessarily true everywhere but down here in the Bible Belt, the bad overshadows the good 9 times out of 10.

There's a lot of thoughtful commentary and curiosity on this thread. I'm enjoying reading it. I didn't want to chime in because I know a little about many religions, but not a lot about any specific one. But I wanted to respond to you.

Sucks a big one you have to be exposed to more bad than good. Because there's bad everywhere, some places worse than others. Some places REALLY worse. But my heart goes out to anyone who has to deal with such hate everywhere. It's exhausting, especially when you're young. Not saying you're young, but it sounds like you've been exposed to it for awhile.

Not much a stranger can say, but I been around awhile and met a lot of different people. Some crazy kind, some crazy evil. I try to be around the kinds ones more than the evil, as much as possible. And I do my best to stay kind myself, and I hope for the best. Mean people, loud people, obnoxious people...those people typically get more attention than they should. I think, overall, there's a lot of good ones out there, dealing with the same frustrations.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

Originally Posted by Buffynut

Not much a stranger can say, but I been around awhile and met a lot of different people. Some crazy kind, some crazy evil. I try to be around the kinds ones more than the evil, as much as possible. And I do my best to stay kind myself, and I hope for the best. Mean people, loud people, obnoxious people...those people typically get more attention than they should. I think, overall, there's a lot of good ones out there, dealing with the same frustrations.

Re: Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

I think stereotyping is a defensive mechanism done instinctively, though. You can't hundred percent blame them, but you can't claim they're innocent either. People stereotype Muslims as suicide bombers or terrorists because they're scared. They fear for their lives, so by stereotyping, they can stay far away and assume they're much safer that way.